When can active surveillance be less active? Prediction of long-term nonreclassification for men with low-risk prostate cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 140-140
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Anna V Faino ◽  
Lisa F Newcomb ◽  
Peter Carroll ◽  
James T Kearns ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Dynamic Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Dynamic Risk Prediction

140 Background: Active surveillance is endorsed as the preferred management strategy for most men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, nearly all active surveillance protocols entail prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing every 3-6 months, and prostate biopsies every 1-2 years. For many men with indolent tumors, this regimen is overly intense, and exposes men to the discomfort, risks, and costs of repeated biopsies. We aimed to determine if some men can be safely selected for a less intense surveillance regimen by predicting the probability of non-reclassification over the next 4 years of surveillance. Methods: Data were collected from men in the multicenter Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS), in which PSAs are collected q3 months and biopsies performed 12 months of diagnosis and then every 2 years. For inclusion in this study, men had to have undergone ≤ 1 follow up biopsy, and have Gleason grade group 1 at diagnosis. Reclassification was defined as increase in Gleason grade group on subsequent biopsy; those without reclassification were censored at last study contact, treatment or 2 years after last biopsy. A dynamic risk prediction model based on a Cox regression with robust variance estimates was used to construct and test a model predicting non-reclassification. Results: Of 1082 men included, 362 (33%) reclassified and the remaining were censored. The final regression model included percent of biopsy cores involved, prior biopsy history, time since diagnosis, BMI, prostate size, diagnostic PSA, and PSAk (a measure of PSA kinetics). This dynamic risk prediction model was assessed at a measurement time of 1 year after diagnosis, predicting risk of reclassification at 4 years. Men at lowest and highest deciles of this model-based risk faced 6% (95%CI 0-12%) and 73% (55-84%) risks of reclassification within 5 years. For at least 10% of the men in the cohort, the negative predictive value (NPV) for reclassification was 95% or higher. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of men with low-risk prostate cancer can safely be followed with a de-intensified active surveillance protocol, which would improve both the tolerability and cost-effectiveness of this management strategy.

scholarly journals Doubling of Decipher Biopsy Genomic Score Is Related to Disease Reclassification on Subsequent Surveillance Biopsy but Not Adverse Features on Radical Prostatectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Kamyar Ghabili ◽  
Nathan Paulson ◽  
Jamil S. Syed ◽  
Cayce B. Nawaf ◽  
Ghazal Khajir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Group 2

The utility of serial Decipher biopsy scores in a true active surveillance population is still unknown. In a man on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, a doubling of the Decipher biopsy score within genomic low-risk category from first to the second biopsy related to biopsy reclassification to Gleason grade group 4 on the third biopsy. However, the final pathology at radical prostatectomy showed Gleason grade group 2 with an organ-confined disease. This case suggests that the genomic risk category of Decipher biopsy scores during active surveillance may be more informative than either the interval genomic score change or the biopsy Gleason grade group.

Optimizing active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: Characterizing provider and patient perspectives.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 250-250
Author(s):  
Archana Radhakrishnan ◽  
Lalita Subramanian ◽  
Aaron Rankin ◽  
Ted A. Skolarus ◽  
Daniela Wittmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Academic Medical Centers ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

250 Background: The number of men on active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer is rapidly increasing. While AS requires routine clinical exams, labs, imaging, and prostate biopsies, many men do not receive all recommended components. Understanding the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding recommended surveillance is critical to ensuring the optimization of AS as a management strategy. Methods: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured, virtual interviews with a purposive sample of 15 men with low-risk prostate cancer who were on AS as their primary management strategy and their partners, and 15 urologists and 19 primary care providers (PCPs) with experience in AS management between June 2020 and March 2021. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), an implementation science framework developed to understand determinants of behaviors and to inform the design of interventions, to guide our interview guide. Questions assessed knowledge, barriers and facilitators, and preferences for provider roles in AS management. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and deductively coded into TDF domains and constructs. Three independent coders iteratively developed and used a shared coding framework. Participant recruitment continued until data saturation by group. Results: Our study included 15 men (on AS between 1-16 years), 5 partners, 15 urologists (3 female, 5 in private practice, 3 in academic medical centers), and 19 PCPs (9 female, 4 in community practices, 15 in academic medical centers). The TDF domain of “knowledge” and the construct, “barriers and facilitators” were most commonly reported as factors impacting receipt of recommended surveillance across all groups. While urologists were most knowledgeable about AS, PCPs noted limitations in understanding for whom AS is recommended, and what it entails. Patients who had made an effort to research or learn about AS found that this knowledge enabled them to be proactive about receiving all recommended components. Urologists and patients noted several common procedural barriers to receiving recommended surveillance, including pain with repeated biopsies, and becoming lost to follow-up. Patients and PCPs were uncertain about what tests were needed and when. Urologists were concerned about PCP knowledge while PCPs described insufficient communication from urologists as barriers to shared care. Procedural facilitators included electronic medical records (EMR) to remind providers and patients of frequency and timing of tests. Conclusions: Key opportunities for optimizing AS include improving patient and PCP knowledge about the components and delivery of AS, facilitating communication between providers, and leveraging EMR to ensure those on AS are followed. The development of an intervention that combines several of these components will be critical to ensuring men on AS receive the recommended surveillance.

scholarly journals Patient Factors That Influence How Physicians Discuss Active Surveillance With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients: A Qualitative Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1719-1727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Veazey Brooks ◽  
Shellie D. Ellis ◽  
Emily Morrow ◽  
Kim S. Kimminau ◽  
J. Brantley Thrasher
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Treatment Side Effects ◽  
Close Observation ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

For men diagnosed with prostate cancer, making treatment decisions can be overwhelming. Navigating treatment options, along with potential treatment side effects, can be difficult, and patients often rely heavily on the advice of their physicians. This study was aimed at understanding more about the way urologists talk with their patients about one treatment option: active surveillance (AS), a recognized management strategy for men with low-risk prostate cancer that includes close observation and monitoring of the cancer. This study reports, through 22 interviews with urologists, that urologists believe patients are hesitant about AS for a number of reasons, including misperceptions about cancer severity, anxiety, aversion to repeated biopsies that accompany AS, or family member preferences. Because urologists play an influential role in educating patients about treatment options, the discussion around AS can be impacted by barriers that physicians believe matter for their patients. Improving awareness among urologists about what factors impact their patient education about low-risk prostate cancer is important. Identifying tools to improve shared decision making in this area could result in treatment decisions that are increasingly concordant with patients’ values, concerns, and goals.

scholarly journals Assessment of PSIM (Prostatic Systemic Inflammatory Markers) Score in Predicting Pathologic Features at Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Who Met the Inclusion Criteria for Active Surveillance

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 355
Author(s):  
Matteo Ferro ◽  
Gennaro Musi ◽  
Deliu Victor Matei ◽  
Alessandro Francesco Mistretta ◽  
Stefano Luzzago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Inflammatory Markers ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Background: circulating levels of lymphocytes, platelets and neutrophils have been identified as factors related to unfavorable clinical outcome for many solid tumors. The aim of this cohort study is to evaluate and validate the use of the Prostatic Systemic Inflammatory Markers (PSIM) score in predicting and improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer who met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. Methods: we reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. We performed a head-to-head comparison between the histological findings of specimens after radical prostatectomy (RP) and prostate biopsies. The PSIM score was calculated on the basis of positivity according to cutoffs (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) 2.0, platelets-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) 118 and monocyte-to-lymphocyte-ratio (MLR) 5.0), with 1 point assigned for each value exceeding the specified threshold and then summed, yielding a final score ranging from 0 to 3. Results: median NLR was 2.07, median PLR was 114.83, median MLR was 3.69. Conclusion: we found a significantly increase in the rate of pathological International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ≥ 2 with the increase of PSIM. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, prostate volume and PSIM, the latter was found the sole independent prognostic variable influencing probability of adverse pathology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document